Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 13:12:35
John Maddock wrote:
> > That won't work well for a test-runner will it? On the
> > first warning, the
> > build will fail. It would be better to have a report of
> > all warnings that
> > must be addressed.
> The issue is that the warnings are otherwise too easy to
> ignore. I fear
> that unless they are made into errors for some test runners -
> and those
> runners are part of the "required" set - then nothing will
> get done :-(
Unfortunately, if maintainers can only address one warning at a time, for a platform not otherwise available, fixing all will be really annoying.
How about a policy that a release will be held up if warnings-as-errors fails? Then an impending release will significantly increase the importance of the warnings report not being clean.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk